Comparison of the GlideScope® videolaryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope for double-lumen tube intubation
H-T Hsu, S-H Chou, P-J Wu, K-Y Tseng, Y-W Kuo, C-Y Chou, K-I Cheng, H-T Hsu, S-H Chou, P-J Wu, K-Y Tseng, Y-W Kuo, C-Y Chou, K-I Cheng
Abstract
Intubation with a double-lumen tube is important for achieving one-lung ventilation and facilitating thoracic surgery. The GlideScope(®) videolaryngoscope (Verathon Inc., Bothell, WA, USA) is designed to assist tracheal intubation for patients with a difficult airway. We wished to compare the GlideScope and direct laryngoscopy for double-lumen tube intubation. Sixty adult patients requiring a double-lumen tube for thoracic surgery and predicted uncomplicated laryngoscopy were randomly assigned to a direct Macintosh laryngoscopy group (n = 30) or a GlideScope group (n = 30). The mean (SD) duration of intubation was longer in the Macintosh group (62.5 (29.7) s) than in the GlideScope group (45.6 (10.7) s; p = 0.007). There was no difference in the success of the first attempt at intubation (26/30 (87%) and 30/30 (100%) for Macintosh and GlideScope groups, respectively; p = 0.112). The incidence of sore throat and hoarseness was higher in the Macintosh group (18 (60%) and 14 (47%), respectively) than in the GlideScope group (6 (20%) and 4 (13%), respectively; p = 0.003 and 0.004). We conclude that double-lumen tube intubation in patients with predicted normal laryngoscopy is easier using the GlideScope videolaryngoscope than the Macintosh laryngoscope.
Anaesthesia © 2012 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.
Source: PubMed